Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking Caught In The Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department seeks narrower wording on "caught in the act" rule after WAG debate over who may act
Summary
WDFW told the Wolf Advisory Group it will propose narrower, defensible language for the WAC provision that allows people to kill wolves "attacking" domestic animals, after members raised enforcement and misapplication concerns about the current "agent" phrasing and the ambiguous term "attacking."
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 7 told the Wolf Advisory Group it plans to draft more specific language for the WAC governing "killing wolves attacking domestic animals," after a prolonged WAG discussion about who may lawfully act under the rule.
Shubh Bhattacharjee, WDFW's wolf and grizzly policy lead, recapped the rulemaking timeline and why changes are being considered: the department filed a CR101 intent and plans to prepare a CR102 draft for public notice this summer. "Every word of that document needs to be defended in the court of law," he told the group, explaining why WDFW prefers language that can be practically enforced.
WAG members focused on a single phrase in the draft: "an agent of an owner." Producers and several rural participants argued the term should remain or be replaced by an inclusive alternative so neighbors, volunteers, landlords, or unpaid helpers can lawfully respond in an emergency. "If you take out agent, how does somebody like that—how are they covered?" asked a rancher who said neighbors often help manage livestock.
Conservation advocates and some WAG members warned the word could be exploited to stage killings. Environmentalist Lynn Okita asked pointedly, "So, Shu, can you explain why when a dead wolf was found that had clearly been poached with a gunshot wound, why the department wouldn't go into a period of evaluation instead of removing another wolf?" That line of questioning pressed WDFW on the chronology of lethal removals and enforcement oversight.
WDFW staff described possible solutions: remove unqualified "agent" language, require that any agent be "documented" or on the owner's records, or add a context‑specific definition of "agent" for the caught‑in‑the‑act rule. "If agent was somehow documented agent, I think that would be a lot clearer and easier for us to know," WDFW enforcement staff said, adding that after‑the‑fact claims of agency complicate enforcement for an endangered species.
The department also asked WAG to consider the rule's other two proposed sections (limits on how often a person may take action and a provision discouraging practices that attract wolves). Shubh said the agency will carry WAG's feedback into internal drafting and aims to publish a CR102 in coming weeks for a six‑week public comment period. The commission, not WAG, is the final decision maker for any adopted language.
